Religion So God isnt really all-powerful?

[Malifice]

The story is something of a morality tale for the exiled community.

Has it been (and is it) always been taught as just a 'morality tale'?

And what other parts of the Torah are just morality tales and not historical or literal truths?

It appears that even the most moderate of preachers and rabbi's will claim parts of the Torah/ Bible to be literal facts.

They just differ on extent.

 

[Malifice]

Palpie never saw Darthie's deception coming until he was halfway down the reactor core on the D.S 2 either, Mal. And Luke was too shocked to care regardless.

Dont watch the Blue Ray 'update' for the love of God.

This scene is now ruined.

Screw you George Lucas.

 

[Max zero]

Why not?
Religion is just another form of, say, idealism, isn't it?
We can demonise it (No, not intended), scoff at it or disapprove of it. But, it is still hard to disprove.
And why bother? It's enough to just say you don't believe it. By disproving it, we simply replace one belief with another belief masquerading as 'reality'.
We rationalise ourselves into insanity.
If we can't understand religion, we can't understand art, or....

We might live in a concrete world but we exist in a few others.

It's amazing how quickly religion will play the 'victim' card and ask for everybody to be left in peace.

I have yet to have atheists knock on my door preaching. I also don't see atheists demanding compulsory atheism lessons at government schools either.

I also find it questionable to equate beliefs based on faith to ones based on reason.

 

[Malifice]

I also find it questionable to equate beliefs based on faith to ones based on reason.

I still see hard athiesm (there certainly is no God) to be a faith statement.

 

[Max zero]

I still see hard athiesm (there certainly is no God) to be a faith statement.

Of course. You cannot fully prove or disprove God (if either of them were it would be the death of God anyway).

But based on probability which one is more likely?

Just for the record (for Contra) Dawkins has said that he is 99% atheist since he agrees you can never be 100% sure. In fact pretty much all atheists subscribe to this view.

 

[Pie eyed]

I was just having a read of Genesis, and I noted with some intrest that Yahweh Elohim needed a rest day after spending 6 days creating the universe.

Can someone explain to me why an all powerful 'God' would need to rest?

And why did it take Him six days to create the universe if He was 'all-powerful'?

Surely He could have just clicked His fingers and it was all done?

Any Christians on here care to expand?

Your quandary stems from the "manmade" misconception that laziness is frowned upon by God...obviously.
Simply imagine you are omnipotent and then reason why you'd never just kick back with a Pina Colada just for the lulz?

Who the hell is going to give you grief for some skiving?

Any God worth knowing would even **** things up every now and then just the for the hell of it, to keep things interesting.
Even phone into the odd shock jock occasionally to stir up some hate.

 

[Malifice]

Of course. You cannot fully prove or disprove God (if either of them were it would be the death of God anyway).

But based on probability which one is more likely?

Logically they are both as likely as each other.

Probably the deepest philosophical problem presented by the theory of relativity is the possibility that the universe may have had its origin at a finite moment in the past and that this origin represented the abrupt coming into being not only of matter and energy but of space and time as well.

Indeed, the central lesson of the theory of relativity is that space and time are not merely the arena in which the drama of the universe is acted out but part of the cast. That is, space-time is as much a part of the physical universe as matter; in fact, the two are intimately interwoven.

As Heisenberg remarks, the idea that time does not stretch back for all eternity but was created with the universe was anticipated in the fifth century by St Augustine. There is thus a scientific counterpart to the creation ex nihilo of Christian tradition.

But the violence done to our concept of physical causation is pro-found, and it is only very recently, within the context of modern quantum cosmology (developed after Heisenberg's death), that a satisfactory picture of the origin of space-time has been forthcoming.

The above is from the preface to Physics and Philosophy by Heisenberg.

Great book by the way. I thouroghly recommend it.

 

[Monniehawk]

It's amazing how quickly religion will play the 'victim' card and ask for everybody to be left in peace.
I have yet to have atheists knock on my door preaching. I also don't see atheists demanding compulsory atheism lessons at government schools either.
I also find it questionable to equate beliefs based on faith to ones based on reason.

1. Yeah. But I'm an atheist. Leave the religious is peace.
2. Asking for a ban on teaching religion is probably tantamount to installing compulsory atheism, isn't it?
Likewise, we are actually trying to impose our own belief by attempting to destroy someone else's.
3. The metaphorical 'knocking on doors' - or evangelising - is as much an atheist activity as sectarian. Witness BF and Dawkins, et al. (Great scientist - sh!t philosopher.)
It would appear that we are 'hard wired' to believe in some form of deity. (Don't leap to the idea that this is proof of gods!) Retreating to the pure pragmatic is simply another form of insanity as it denies this as a human activity. Being so enamoured with tangibles and an immature faith in 'reality' is parallel to some of the excesses of religion. It is just as closed-minded and limiting.

 

[Max zero]

1. Yeah. But I'm an atheist. Leave the religious is peace.
2. Asking for a ban on teaching religion is probably tantamount to installing compulsory atheism, isn't it?
Likewise, we are actually trying to impose our own belief by attempting to destroy someone else's.
3. The metaphorical 'knocking on doors' - or evangelising - is as much an atheist activity as sectarian. Witness BF and Dawkins, et al. (Great scientist - sh!t philosopher.)
It would appear that we are 'hard wired' to believe in some form of deity. (Don't leap to the idea that this is proof of gods!) Retreating to the pure pragmatic is simply another form of insanity as it denies this as a human activity. Being so enamoured with tangibles and an immature faith in 'reality' is parallel to some of the excesses of religion. It is just as closed-minded and limiting.

What ban on teaching religion? Is someone asking for a ban of private schools? Even in government schools is a question of offering an alternative to RE classes. You know this.

Dawkins putting out a book isn't the same as someone knocking on your door.

We are also hardwired to impregnate as many women as possible (men anyway). Somehow we manage to overcome it (for the most part).

 

[Hodgepodge]

Makes me wonder when the week was invented, and if it's based off of these supposed 7 days.

Or is it the other way round?

 

[Monniehawk]

What ban on teaching religion? Is someone asking for a ban of private schools? Even in government schools is a question of offering an alternative to RE classes. You know this.

You appeared to be alluding to other threads outraged at religion being taught. Another issue maybe.

Dawkins putting out a book isn't the same as someone knocking on your door.

I acknowledged your analogy as a metaphor for evangelism. Your door knocking analogy is at least equally spurious, but atheist evangelism is still just as irritating.
And mindless.

We are also hardwired to impregnate as many women as possible (men anyway). Somehow we manage to overcome it (for the most part).

OK. We're both guilty of drawing frivolous conclusions.
But I had tried to acknowledge that religion is a part of the human psyche and condition. Too many atheists dismiss it as completely irrational and anathema to man. It is just there: you can accept it or reject it, but you can't convincingly deny that it exists.

 

[TRAWP]

God is the real master troll in this situation.

The longest serving troll in history and the best at it.

 

[Sloth]

Yeah, and if you ride in an iron chariot he can't touch you.

 

[raskolnikov]

I was just having a read of Genesis, and I noted with some intrest that Yahweh Elohim needed a rest day after spending 6 days creating the universe.

Can someone explain to me why an all powerful 'God' would need to rest?

And why did it take Him six days to create the universe if He was 'all-powerful'?

Surely He could have just clicked His fingers and it was all done?

Any Christians on here care to expand?

I'm not Christian. I'm agnostic leaning towards skepticism.

However, I have read the Bible and I believe that is it a mixture of fact, metaphor, allegory and myth. Therefore I have a problem with people like the OP who say, "Oh but doesn't the Bible say this? It must be wrong then". Well yes it does, but why accuse something of being factually incorrect when it's not meant to be factually correct?

 

[buddy23]

I'm more interested in Jesus' missing years. During the ages where we were having a flog, getting drunk, fornicating causing general mischief - was he doing the same? Or did he never do any of this stuff?

 

[skilts]

I'm more interested in Jesus' missing years. During the ages where we were having a flog, getting drunk, fornicating causing general mischief - was he doing the same? Or did he never do any of this stuff?

He ended up with twelve very close men friends. He never married. Draw your own conclusions.

Is not surprising that you know little about any carousing he might have done. His parents never even admitted to committing the sexual act which caused his conception. Word is, his mother had considerable influence on him about not kissing (or anything else for that matter) and telling.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

He also hung out with prostitutes though. I think I'll try and emulate that part of his life

 

[Max zero]

You appeared to be alluding to other threads outraged at religion being taught. Another issue maybe.

I acknowledged your analogy as a metaphor for evangelism. Your door knocking analogy is at least equally spurious, but atheist evangelism is still just as irritating.
And mindless.

OK. We're both guilty of drawing frivolous conclusions.
But I had tried to acknowledge that religion is a part of the human psyche and condition. Too many atheists dismiss it as completely irrational and anathema to man. It is just there: you can accept it or reject it, but you can't convincingly deny that it exists.

Who says anything about denying religeous tendancies? We know full well that they exist, we are just pointing out the ridiculousness of them.

The vast majority of 'athiest action' isn't about banning religeon (as if you could) but having an option to be free of it, especially in regards to children's learning.

 

[The rabbi]

Im a literallist. Surely the Bible was meant to be read literally as the 'Word of God'. I actually have some time for religious fundies like the Westboro Baptist Church and similar.

They appear to be the ones doing it 'right'.

I just does not follow that the bible should be read literally. Even the biblical writers and Jesus himself did not interpret the text literally.

Take Paul's letter to the Galatians, for instance. He takes two woman from Genesis (Hagar and Sarah), yes Genesis, and then begins to interpret the two woman as two "covenants". Is that a literal interpretation?

Jesus in the gospels takes the story of Jonah in the great sea monster and uses it as an illustration of his own resurrection. Jesus talks about the temple in Jerusalem being destroyed and then declares that it will be rebuilt in three days. However the temple that Jesus was eluding to was his own body which would undergo resurrection in three days. Paul also uses the temple as a metaphor of the human body. Is that literal?

In the book of revelation the author has a vision of 7 lampstands. He later clearly interprets the lampstands as the 7 churches of Asia minor. Are we supposed to ignore the authors own interpretation and believe that the lampstands are literally lampstands?

Seriously, try reading Revelation literally or any of the apocalyptic literature in the bible literally!

Do we take this passage from Song of Solomon as poetry or do we read it literally?


[SIZE=+1]Song Of Solomon{4.1-4.5} Behold, you are beautiful, my love. Behold, you are beautiful. Your eyes are like the doves behind your veil. Your hair is as a flock of goats that appear from Mount Gilead. Your teeth are like a flock of sheep that are freshly shorn, which came up from the washing; every one of which bears twins, and none is barren among them.[/SIZE]

Does the writer of the Psalms, when he says that "the trees of the field clap their hands" want us to take him literally?

Biblical literalism is a product of the Reformation. Prior to the Reformation the the Catholic church (the Magisterium) was the ultimate authority for biblical interpretation. The church was informed by the sacred tradition of the church fathers and the bible.

In the dispute with the Catholic church the reformers needed an authority superior to the Catholic church hierarchy to appeal to. That authority they found in the bible itself. Hence the cry of the reformers "Sola Scriptura" or Scripture alone. This relieved them of the authority of the Magisterium (the Pope and Bishops) and Church tradition. It also resulted in something like a deification of the bible among later fundamentalist Protestants.

 

[The rabbi]

Take Genesis. Up untill quite recently it was taught as literal truth by the Catholic church, and they opposed Evolution and the Big Bang quite vehemently before giving in to their current pro Intelligent design arguments.

Intelligent design is not a doctrine of the Catholic church, nor is it a doctrine of the protestant church. It is excepted by some elements with in both of those camps but also is vehemently opposed by others within both camps.

Your assertion that the big bang was vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church is nonsense. The idea of the big bang cosmology actually has its origin in the Belgian Roman Catholic Jesuit priest Georges Le Maitre. This is common knowledge.

Le Maitre put his proposal to Einstein who rejected it.

The term "Big Bang" was actually coined by the British Mathematician and Astronomer Fred Hoyle. He used it in a derogative manner to mock the idea of what we now know as the Big Bang model. Hoyle was committed to the Steady State model of the universe. He argued that if there was a big bang then there should still be traces of the cosmic radiation from that event. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson won the Nobel prize in 1964 for the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave background Radiation putting and end to Hoyle's protests.

It may interest you to know that Fred Hoyle was an atheist.

 

[Monniehawk]

Who says anything about denying religeous tendancies? We know full well that they exist, we are just pointing out the ridiculousness of them.
The vast majority of 'athiest action' isn't about banning religeon (as if you could) but having an option to be free of it, especially in regards to children's learning.

'Free' of it? Religion is a choice, at worst a predilection, but not compulsory! Reject it if it worries you. I did, but why disparage it because it doesn't suit you or that you consider it ridiculous? It's just another belief.
I consider it to be misguided. No biggy. No need for anti-Christian rhetoric. Don't subscribe to the Dreaming either, but I can respect it and understand how people arrived at it. They are entitled to beliefs and to have them challenged, but certainly not disparaged. That's insulting and disrespectful, if not a tad arrogant.
I take your point about the vast majority of atheists not wanting to ban religion: that is probably true, but as an atheist, I am concerned that too much time is taken running down other beliefs rather than actually reinforcing why we believe what we do. Too defensive. We can surely state our case reasonably and cogently without resorting to sarcasm and scorn.
Mal: if you want to take the Bible literally, good luck. But we have both been fighting the same fight against biblical literalists for some time, haven't we? Enough of them already - and as Rabbi points out, it is a relatively recent phenomena that doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is rejected by the vast majority of xtians, anyway.
How about we tell xians why we believe in no gods, rather than telling them why they shouldn't believe in theirs!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

'Free' of it? Religion is a choice, at worst a predilection, but not compulsory! Reject it if it worries you. I did, but why disparage it because it doesn't suit you or that you consider it ridiculous? It's just another belief.

As adults we have a choice. But as children? I was brought up in an Irish Catholic household - there was no question of my religion until I was old enough to voice my own opposition. I was a Catholic Kid and I went to Mass. First Communion. Confirmation. The game was up after that, but up until a certain point I was given no choice to make of my own.

That will never happen with my kids, I can tell you.

 

[Malifice]

I'm not Christian. I'm agnostic leaning towards skepticism.

However, I have read the Bible and I believe that is it a mixture of fact, metaphor, allegory and myth.

Which bits are fact, what are the metaphors, what are allegories and what are myths, and how do we tell them apart?

Why (for example) cant 'God' just be a metaphor?

Or the story of Jesus be just a myth?

What bits do we interpret literally, and what bits do we brush aside as allegories or metaphors?

Because the goalposts seem to change a fair bit.

I certainly would not want to be interpreting legislation in that manner.

 

[Malifice]

I just does not follow that the bible should be read literally. Even the biblical writers and Jesus himself did not interpret the text literally.

Thats not quite true with reference to Genesis:

The early Church Fathers taught creationism—though there was debate being over whether God created the world in six days, as Clement of Alexandria taught,[8] or in a single moment as held by Augustine,[9] and a literal interpretation of Genesis was normally taken for granted in the Middle Ages and later, until it was rejected in favour of uniformitarianism (entailing far greater timeframes) by a majority of geologists in the 19th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

And further it appears as if it was taken literally:

Until the 18th century, the general belief in Christendom was that the earth was created about 4,000 - 5,500 years before the birth of Christ, and that the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the stories of Abraham and the Exodus described actual events, constituting a genuine narrative history from Creation to the founding of Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_and_history#Challenges_to_historicity

Also the Church wasnt exactly in disagreement with reference to Genesis:

The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree ratified by Pope Pius X on June 30, 1909 that stated that the literal historical meaning of the first chapters of Genesis could not be doubted in regard to "the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race....". As in 1860, "special creation" was only referred to in respect of the human species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

Take Paul's letter to the Galatians, for instance. He takes two woman from Genesis (Hagar and Sarah), yes Genesis, and then begins to interpret the two woman as two "covenants". Is that a literal interpretation?

So I am not to take Jesus as a literal historical figure, but as merely an allegory?

What parts are 'real' and what parts are allegory?

Because even the Church has flip flopped on this a fair bit.

Pope Leo XIII had this to say on 18 November 1893 on the interpretation of Scripture:

Leo stressed the unstable and changing nature of scientific theory, and criticised the "thirst for novelty and the unrestrained freedom of thought" of the age, but accepted that the apparent literal sense of the Bible might not always be correct. In biblical interpretation, Catholic scholars should not "depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution#Pope_Benedict_XVI_and_today

So the Bible is literally correct... unless Science or Reason proves it wrong?

Thats a pretty dangerous postion for an orginisation that relies on Faith to put forward.

Also explains why the Goal posts have moved so much since the age of Enlightenment and the surge in popularity of the Scientific method and empricism over superstition.

Intelligent design is not a doctrine of the Catholic church, nor is it a doctrine of the protestant church.

Not an official doctrine per se but check out what the Pope had to say on the matter:

In a commentary on Genesis authored as Cardinal Ratzinger titled In the Beginning... Benedict XVI spoke of "the inner unity of creation and evolution and of faith and reason" and that these two realms of knowledge are complementary, not contradictory:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.​

In July 2007 at a meeting with clergy Pope Benedict XVI noted that the conflict between "creationism" and evolution (as a finding of science) is “absurd:” [42]

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.
​

— Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41–58)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994, revised 1997) on faith, evolution and science states:

159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....​

While not an explicit doctrine of the Catholic faith, evolution guided by God (and the Big bang as a work of God) are pretty much the (currently) accepted model of the universe for Catholics.

Your assertion that the big bang was vehemently opposed by the Catholic Church is nonsense.

I stand corrected.

The idea of the big bang cosmology actually has its origin in the Belgian Roman Catholic Jesuit priest Georges Le Maitre. This is common knowledge.

And Augustine also considered it a possiblity as well.

I agree that I was wrong there.

 

[skilts]

He also hung out with prostitutes though. I think I'll try and emulate that part of his life

Mary Magdalen was merely a ruse to confuse.

She didn't even get a guernsey at his last feed.